Controversial Beer Opinions Thread

I tried Mississippi mud years before I was into craft beers. I think it was a "black and tan" and actually had a thin mud like residue in the bottom of the jug from my memory. Must have been quite unfiltered (or old). For 4 dollars, I'd try it again just for old times sake.

 

I did laugh at that one. But I don't buy my insurance from Flo either.

 

I look at the style and the ABV. Plus any description .If interested I ask for a sample which is always given. My decision to buy is based on this

 

While I don’t view it as “hilarious” I agree with your point of view. If anyone was in a bar and looking at a choice between two taphandles, and one had the name “Mop Water” Brown Ale (which is a real beer BTW) and the other had the name “Cuvee Brun,” they would certainly be drawn to one more than the other.

It doesn't matter which one, it doesn't matter if it’s only by a very small amount, and it doesn’t matter if that person can simply react to just the beer in the glass once they decide between the two... that person is still going to react to those names differently before actually trying the beer.

Granted, the original post was asking about people basing their purchases “entirely” on marketing... and you’re talking about others saying “zero role”... which are both dealing in absolutes. It doesn’t make sense to discuss this in absolute terms. People are acting like they are immune because they feel that marketing doesn’t “make” them buy something... but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t influenced by marketing. Everyone is influenced by marketing.

 

Ironic that you make an argument that it doesn’t makes sense to discuss the topic in absolutes by claiming other absolutes and then end up capping off your argument with still another absolute.

 

Indeed.

 

BTW, this is an article you may find of interest in sorting out some of the myths and realities of the topic.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...nal-ads-unconscious-influence-and-consumption

It's a reasonable summary of both some conceptual and some research issues.

(There have been a few very badly done "studies" that have had an undue impact on popular perception of "subliminal" advertising and it's effects.)

 

Agreed with all of this, but give the New World producers some time and they'll catch up. Well, some of them will.

 

Cool labels get people to buy more beer. Change my mind.

 

I think label art creation is a lot like the beer drinking "hobby". It may not do a whole lot of good, but it sure is fun.

 

I know that interesting packaging sells product. I've never said that it didn't.

 

That quip wasn't for you, but I'm happy that you agree with me, regardless.

 

I think I used to see more 'turbid,' 'murky,' 'hazy' and 'unfiltered.' I'm pretty sure there's no official guidance defining the gradation and boundaries between those descriptors but, in my own head, I understand the distinction. In current usage, turbid, murky and hazy are all simply hazy, and unfiltered goes without remark.

 

'Hazy' is defined as the following: "covered by a haze", with 'haze' being defined as "a slight obscuration of the lower atmosphere, typically caused by fine suspended particles". Emphasis, mine.

For example, I wouldn't consider this beer hazy at all (first image result after Googling "hazy IPA"):



This beer is has more of a hazy appearance to me (Google result #14 for "hazy IPA"):



Some people have grown to expect the first one to be a proper 'hazy' beer, which makes reviewing and rating these beers tricky. Do I rate to the actual definition or the interpreted definition of the word? Nitpicky, yes, but I want to be specific when describing a beer. I agree that there is no official boundaries on what quantifies a 'hazy' beer's looks versus an 'opaque' beer, it's just up to the individual drinker. This is just my stance (and issues) on the descriptor. Fortunately, there are other words to describe both of the beers above.

 

I always assumed craft beer was marketed to sexually frustrated teenaged boys. How else do you explain all the video game and heavy metal imagery and references?

 

We are all nerds, dorks and geeks in some way. But how do you explain Against The Grain label "art"? Is it "controversial", "edgy", "extreme", etc.? Or just flat out idiotic, dumb and immature?

 

An ad exec once summed it up for me in two words, "sex sells".

 

This.

 

Thanks. I do find that stuff very interesting. In my “Mop Water” example I’m talking about something far more upfront and with conscious influence, but your link still has relevance.

I know you get it, but let me make an analogy just for its own sake. If you took one man and dressed him up in three different outfits - a dirty construction worker, a punk rocker, and a man with slicked-back hair in a fancy business suit - people would begin to form inferences about that person. These can range from whopping stereotypes to very minor assumptions. They can be conscious or somewhat subconscious. People can also still be totally open to having those assumptions challenged and not forming firm opinions about who that person is until they actually get to know that person, but regardless, people are still going to have some sort of reaction to that person (large or very small) before deeper knowledge is gained.